~

ALERT: The Pope Is Still Not a Marxist

Before everyone gets all freaky on the pope once again, his latest statement – up on Drudge in big scary letters – is that there should be a “legitimate redistribution of economic benefits by the state.” The headline reads:

POPE: ‘LEGITIMATE REDISTRIBUTION’ OF WEALTH

Well that’s not exactly what he said, but anyway even if it was, this is really not as controversial as the media wants it to be.

So pause. Breath. Have a piece of Easter candy (you know you still have some), and think about it for a second.

All the pope’s saying is that there are legitimate ways by which the state can distribute economic benefits, or wealth if you want. We already know this and believe this as Catholics. It is in fact a part of Catholic Social Teaching that the state has a role in making sure that the poor in a society have access to that which they have a right, like food and water enough to live.

This is what the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, which was promulgated under Pope Benedict’s reign, says:

329. Riches fulfill their function of service to man when they are destined to produce benefits for others and for society. “How could we ever do good to our neighbor,” asks St. Clement of Alexandria, “if none of us possessed anything?”. In the perspective of St. John Chrysostom, riches belong to some people so that they can gain merit by sharing them with others. Wealth is a good that comes from God and is to be used by its owner and made to circulate so that even the needy may enjoy it.

The “made to circulate” part is the part in which the state can have a role. The extent of that role is the part over which good Catholics can argue, but it is certainly un-Catholic to argue that the state should have no role.

For those who insist that the pope is a Marxist, the quote from the Holy Father actually undermines that idea, for he obviously thinks there are illegitimate ways by which the state redistributes wealth, a position over which I suspect Marx and Lenin would have quibbled.

Also note, please, that he uses the phrase “economic benefits” and not actually the word “wealth.” CNN threw that in there for more pizzazz.

“Wealth” usually connotes money and capital and that’s it. The word, then, is handy for advancing the whole Pope-is-Obama meme. “Economic benefits,” on the other hand, in my mind include all sorts of things on top of money and capital like opportunity for upward mobility, job training, access to micro loans, education etc. These are all benefits which advance economic position, opportunity, potential.

This is another example of why we shouldn’t trust main stream media reports to learn more about our faith. That goes for you conservatives out there who take your cues on the pope from Rush Limbaugh and Matt Drudge.

By the way, the rest of the quote is “legitimate redistribution of economic benefits by the state, as well as indispensable cooperation between the private sector and civil society.” Note the word “indispensable.” Actually, what the Compendium says in paragraph 91 is that the State works with the private sector in order to help redistribute economic benefits. That’s the way the principle of subsidiarity works. If the state weren’t involved at all, then we wouldn’t be talking about subsidiarity at all. So maybe the headline should read:

He didn’t say that the state can run our lives better than we can. He has said what prior Popes said – exactly the same thing. But because the media belongs to Obama now, his media is spinning every Papal statement to support their desires. It doesn’t matter what the Pope says or means – the media is now going to use him to support all their ideas.

“The media belongs to Obama now. his media…”Wow, just wow where did that come from? Get a gripe on yourself and cease conflating two different things; that is, the Pope’s words and President. Yes, the media does spin the Pope’s words, but why attribute that to Obama. The majority of the media is right wing as you must know–FOX, Limbaugh, etc. So how can Obama control what the tight wing owns? Just asking.

There are several problems inherent in the whole scenario. 1) The pope is preaching nothing new but the media ignores (or doesn’t know) that. 2) The media had so hoped he would change dogma and now that he hasn’t they have to go on the attack against the “first nice pope”. 3) The American media, like our American Protestant brethren, is myopic vis a vis papal statements and their application. They think all things are American, and in the case of many American Protestants, all things are primarily generated in religion emanating from south of the Mason-Dixon line since 1830. 4) They can’t conceive that the pope is the head of the “universal Church” on earth and what he says is not entirely and only directed at New York, or Atlanta, or L.A., or Dallas. It also applies in Manila and Sao Paulo and Mexico City and Calcutta and Mumbai and etc., etc. We have the small minded goof balls making the pope into another Obama. Would that they sought to make Obama into the pope!

Mr. Gutierrez,
The Pope’s statement seems to be just vague enough to cause controversy, like several of his earlier statements. As you know, there are many Christians who are wary of Catholics, and especially of the Pope. What is your opinion on how Pope Francis’ latest statement affects relations between Catholics and other Christian denominations? If you care to know my opinion, the fruits of these statements are not good for relations between Catholics and other Christians and are just vague enough to provide ammunition to the enemies of the Church and of freedom. Capitalism is the only economic system under which freedom (religious or otherwise) can thrive – not socialism, not communism, not Marxism. If Pope Francis believes that then he should come out and say so. To be consistent with his style on other controversial issues, instead of focusing on the negatives of capitalism, Pope Francis should spend time explaining the differences between responsible capitalism and Ayn Rand style hyper-capitalism (which is unacceptable), and offer guidance on how we can be responsible capitalists….and hire someone to carefully edit out of his comments vague statements that cause confusion and controversy. With all due respect to you, Catholics like myself should not have to come to your and others’ blogs for an explanation and defense of the Pope’s comments on issues of importance every time the Pope speaks in public. A simple and humble man like the Pope should use simple language to convey what he and our Church believe so that simple people like myself can understand what he is saying rather than having to consult experts like yourself every other month for an explanation and defense of his statements. At some point we all need to admit, it is not us simple people who just do not “get it”; rather it is a failure by the Pope to communicate effectively (please do not blame it all on the media as carefully worded statements can be drafted to avoid controversy).
Respectfully,
Andrew

Mr. Gutierrez,
It is vague because he used the word redistribution even though he left out the word wealth and used a different term (economic resources). “Redistribution” connotes taking from one and giving to another. Why not use the words “distribution” or “allocation” or “stewardship” of “resources”? Doing so would not have caused a controversy. His early comments on abortion were controversial as well (seemingly labeling right to lifers negative droning party poopers) though he later made some strong comments to clarify. So what does he believe in? Capitalism or socialism or something else? If he does not likewise come out with some strong comments supporting capitalism, then it might be concluded that he is a socialist at the very least. I respect what you are doing with this blog entry but my feelings have not changed. Our leader should remain quiet or be more careful about the words he chooses. Otherwise at the very least we may conclude he is a bad communicator. Personally, I am about ready to disregard all future comments that do not deal exclusively with Catholic doctrine as I can be sure that any message on matters concerning politics or economics will be confusing and poorly worded. And on matters of doctrine I need to wait about three months after any statement he makes to see whether he clarifies his position on an issue. This confusion is not uniting Christians; non-Catholics have every right to be suspicious. That breaks my heart because I really want to see us all united.
Respectfully,
Andrew

But then what’s vague about “redistribution”? Yes it means taking from one and giving to others. In common parlance this is called taxation. Taxes are an almost universally recognized legitimate means of redistributing wealth. Is all taxation socialist?

See I think that confusion is not in the mind if the pope or in his words. I think it is in our minds who are habituated to think in certain ways the media tells us to think.

There is nothing unclear, vague, or confusing about what the Holy Father wrote here. Nothing. We’re just not used to hearing it.

All that the phrase “legitimate restistribution of economic resources” means is that mature states should have normal welfare programs. they all do, so the Pope is not calling for anything new – except he wants to move our hearts so that we have a moral commitment to helping the poor.
It is the media that reads every statement through a political lens,a nd then gets it all wrong.

”The “made to circulate” part is the part in which the state can have a role. The extent of that role is the part over which good Catholics can argue, but it is certainly un-Catholic to argue that the state should have no role.”

I can imagine a Catholic arguing that the state should have no role, in certain circumstances where a state is perhaps very weak to begin with, and where civil institutions, by contrast, were very strong. So that would not be un-Catholic. But that hypothetical is not a reality in most of the world today, so far as I am aware.

I agree that we have to do our best to balance the actual implementation of the principles of subsidiarity against the real needs of people. Probably most of the time, this must involve the state, or at least the law, to some extent; and it is difficult to know ahead of time what the right balance is at a particular point in time and in any particular place, since the best balance [which of course, requires some kind of consensus as to what it is] depends on many factors which do not remain constant. This means that a prerequisite for coming to a proper balance is some degree of freedom to be able to experiment in order to find that balance, and to make adjustments when the situation changes or a different view of the correct balance emerges.

Throw a verbal bombshell in a room full of people/reporters, walk out the door and lock it. Very unbecoming of our church and seems to be very secularist. This sounds like something a college professor would do.

In the aftermath, do damage control by apologists like yours truly above. These are the same games played by our secularist American President.

Pray for our Church and ask the Holy Spirit to whisper in our Pope’s ear.

I had a very similar conversation with a friend the other day. Nothing to do with the Pope but to do with contemporary social issues. She still regrets that she got upset but feels very stronly about the conversation; in future she will change subject as she believes that i can’t build a reasonable argument around these topics.
But then again, the Pope, or myself in my little world, just follow the steps of Christ. People claimed that our Lord made so little sense that it was worth crucifying him. I believe that, as Catholics, we should always remember this truth.

I think we have to credit Rush Limbaugh with being right that certain portions of Evangelium Gaudi are ‘pure Marxism.’ But those portions he refers to are also Catholic teaching and always have been so. They regard the universal destination of goods. This doctrine is also referred to in the new catechism, so the Pope was not saying anything new. The way he said it, nevertheless, was singularly forceful and powerful in a fresh way that caused people who are comfortable with the system to squirm and cry out.

The truth is the truth. Almost no one is ever 100% wrong, and that includes Karl Marx. The fact that Marx was against religion doesn’t mean he can’t be right on other issues. Calling people ‘marxist’ is just a way to shut down real discussion of the underlying issues which create economic inequality. This is a legitimate human issue, and as the Church is the mother of mankind, it is now and always has been within her purview to address such issues.

Did the Pope offer any answers, or endorse any answers, to this issue in Evangelium Gaudi? None that I read. He just told us to use our wealth and power to do something about it instead of always trying to rationalize it away. But he didn’t say how to use our resources to do that.

I’d agree that just because Marx was an atheist doesn’t mean he was wrong about everything. But it doesn’t follow from that that Church teaching is Marxist much less “pure Marxism.” To say so is like saying that Church teaching is purely Lockean because it promotes a right to life.

Intelligent people are looking for clarity, not to shut the Pope down. Jesus and the Apostles never taught us to use government to “redistribute” resources. Using that word implies taking from one to give to another. Social safety nets are fine; using taxes to make everyone equal via redistribution is not. I keep hearing Catholics say something to the effect that ignorant Americans just don’t understand what the Pope is saying because the Pope is speaking to a world audience. Really? That is unfair. The US is one of the world’s largest and wealthiest countries. Any public message on world issues should take into account the American view and likely interpretation of same. Consistently failing to do so means 1) he doesn’t care what Americans think or 2) he’s a bad communicator or 3) the controversial interpretations of his statements are actually correct. I am Catholic and I am not comfortable with any of those. Also using the word “redistribute” does not only set off alarms in the Southern Protestant world. It is Marxist terminology. Other words could have been used to avoid a controversy. These controversies are becoming the rule rather than the exception.

Yes, really. the Pope almost never has the US specifically in mind when he speaks. He has the entire world in mind. The US only has 6% of the world’s Catholics. When the Pope speaks, I think he is thinking first of all of Latin America, where all of his experience and knowledge comes from. His knowledge of the severe poverty there – the shacks made of tin that millions upon millions live in – the many that literally die in the streets every single day – all of this forms the backdrop against which he speaks. Then he thinks of the broader world – Europe and Africa and Asia, and only third does he think of the US. The US media believes that everything he says is said directly to them and they make wrong assumption after wrong assumption when they listen to the guy.
He is reminding us of a moral – not a political – concept – that every single one of these poor people in a shack has the same inherent right to the fruits of our economy as we do. That is a hard concept for some to take. They are literally unable to take care of themselves, and it falls on us to do so.
And I say this as a strong believer in a free markets and as a conservative.

Mr. Guttieriez, Thank you so much for the clarification of the Holy Father’s statements. Keep up God’s work. Is the entire transcript of his talk with the U.N. (I think) available? I need to understand it better. People get so fired up about information that is second-hand or worse.

I determined some time ago that it was necessary for me to do away with (exploitation) TV and avoid visiting secular sites for the sake of spiritual growth and inner peace. For those who can endure such exposure please consider that the enemy desires such knee-jerk reactions, the intent is malicious and ‘good for business’. Yes, beloved, take a deep breath. Try reading Rerum Novarum and remember, the Holy Father knows his predecessors. Be among the ‘cooler heads’ and relax.
“Hotheadedness was never constructive; it has always destroyed everything. It has inflamed passions, but never assuaged them. It sows no seeds but those of hatred and destruction. Far from bringing about the reconciliation of contending parties, it reduces men and political parties to the necessity of laboriously redoing the work of the past, building on the ruins that disharmony has left in its wake.” —
Pius XII’s address to Italian workers, Rome, Pentecost, June 13, 1943

Mr. Gutierrez,
Thanks again for writing this blog and giving us a forum to discuss. My final comment is this. A consistent pattern has emerged with respect to Pope Francis. The Pope makes a comment; the comment is disseminated by the media; the comment is confusing; the comment is ALWAYS politically left leaning; the comment is used by enemies of the Church (or at least secularists and statists) to support their own agenda; the comment creates division, especially among Christians. Never are these controversial comments politically right leaning. We are free to draw our own conclusions from the pattern which, one year in, is undeniable.
Respectfully,
Andrew

I agree. Pope Francis surely knows the confusion his words create and how leftists use them to support their arguments. Words have meanings and I wonder what the end game is. How easy it would be for the Pope to make his positions clear and not left for us to decipher. I grow weary from all the theatrics related to the Holy Father’s comments.
When I see the envelopes at Mass labeled economic distribution, I will know the end is near.

When I read #329 from the Compendium I hear “free will”. My wealth is mine; if I choose not share it I will pay the price for my selfishness for all eternity I suspect. But that should be my choice. It should not be dictated by the government; paying taxes is giving to Caesar what is Caesar’s; giving to the poor is giving to God what is God’s. Paying my taxes and not giving to the poor from my heart, by my own free will is NOT charity, it’s merely a way for people who don’t want to give from their largess from feeling guilty by comandeering other people’s money to what they won’t do.

And I believe that subsidiarity is actually the opposite of redistribution. Redistribution implies centralization, whereas subsidiarity is that the smallest or the most local authority capable of dealing with the situation should handle it.

Sorry, but I’m really just baffled as to why we are trying to read the pope’s comments as socialism when they clearly aren’t. Look, modern taxation is taking money that is yours and using part of it to help other people who are poor and to build roads and to set up job training programs etc. That is redistributing wealth. Call it “giving unto Ceasar what is Ceasar’s”, but it’s still redistribution. The pope never said it was charity. St. Thomas Aquinas doesn’t say its charity either. In fact it’s not suppose to be charity. This is why it’s called social JUSTICE. Because, you see, we as Christians believe that that money is not really mine but God’s. All of it. And, according to Pope St. Gregory the Great, when we provide for the poor basic needs like food and water we are providing them what is rightfully theirs. That’s not Marx. That’s not Lenin. That’s not Obama. That’s a sainted pope. That’s also the language from St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil and many other saints and blesseds.

Folks, this is Catholic teaching!!!

Claudia, subsidiarity is a means by which redistribution happens. They are not mutually exclusive terms.

I’m guessing the reason we are interpreting the Holy Father’s comments as “socialism” is because he was speaking before a body that he hopes will take his ball and run with it and they will do that, each in his/her own country via politics using the economic system as the vehicle to cure the ills he is concerned about.

The unfortunate thing is that redistribution doesn’t work. It sounds nice, but it doesn’t work. What will work is agape, caritas, love, each for his own – his own children, his own employees, his own neighbors. That is how I see the teaching of subsidiarity. If we each make sure those people around us are taken care of there is no need for coerced governmental redistribution.

So because he’s talking to the UN his words must mean socialism? Does anyone doubt that the Holy Father wants people to love? Hasn’t that been one of the central themes of his pontificate? He’s said repeatedly that we need to found our lives in a person relationship with Christ. He wrote a whole letter on it. Why do you presume that paying your taxes and charity are mutually exclusive?

Yes, if we were all angels then we wouldn’t need governments. But we’re not. So we do.

I give you the point – the Pope is not a Marxist and is talking subsidiarity in line with Church teaching and not socialism. (I acutally never said otherwise) HOWEVER, the people to whom he is speaking (probably some of whom are Marxists) most likely never heard of the Church teaching on subsidiarity and are hearing socialism. And further, as the media is already doing, will expound the fact that the Holy Father is in favor of socialism, or if you prefer redistribution.

And thus the Holy Father’s point that we must all develop our relationship with the Lord so we become closer to angels, are more dependent on Him and less on the government. So the church needs to spend much more time and energy on mission and evangelization.

And I am not making taxes and charity mutually exclusive: our Lord did, “Render on to Caesar what is Caesar’s and on to God what is God’s”. His point is law abiding Christian people pay their taxes, but once they do there is something more they must give for God.

He is merely endorsing the type of welfare programs we have today. Several Popes have done this. Now, you can disagree with that stance and insist that all charity be delivered via private means. However, most people believe that will not meet all the needs. However, if you can figure out a way where government is not needed in any way, I’m sure the Pope would be happy with doing things that way. However. I think most people realize there is a limited role for government in providing welfare.

And, I believe that your understanding goes against Catholic teaching. I believe that recent Popes have realized the need for LEGITIMATE welfare systems to support the poor that we all contribute to via our taxes. That’s why Pope Franicis used that phrase “legitimate redistribution of our economic resources” He did not support unlimited redistribution. In my view, he merely reiterated the fact that recent Popes have endorsed the idea of state welfare systems where needed but only to the extent they are “legitimate”
What does legitimate mean? Well it is open for speculation, but it probably means that the programs must help, rather than hurt the poor, that they are limited and that he is definitely not talking about taking everything from the rich and giving to the poor.

In defense of Andrew, I agree with his stance wholeheartedly. The Pope employed the word, redistribution and connected it with government. Coming from a religious leader, it makes my hair stand on end. For what can the state redistribute other than money? There are many facets of the Roman Catholic faith that speak to my heart, but it is comments like the one we are discussing that turn me away in disgust.

“disgust?” Please we’re not talking about the abuse of the children or worshiping idols or any number of horrid things here. The pope said that the government has a role is redistributing wealth, which is a fact of our lives.

Here, maybe this will help: if the redistribution of wealth by the government is disgusting, do you and Andrew propose that we never pay any taxes ever? Are you arguing that paying taxes is against Christian teaching? Are you arguing that because the word “redistribution” in English causes your hair to stand on end means that the pope in Rome should refrain from using the Italian word which doesn’t bother anyone there? Should the pope compromise on Christian doctrine because you don’t like a certain word? If the pope has used a different word as Andrew says, like, “legitimate distribution” or “legitimate allocation” of wealth by the state, do you really mean to suggest to me that you wouldn’t still be complaining?

Government is not the enemy! The devil is. Folks, we need to start thinking like Christians and not as Americans as much as we can do that. Please help me and stop feeding into this media feeding frenzy.

God bless you, Omar. I happened to turn on the radio yesterday and heard Hannity go off on the Pope and the Catholic Church. Saddened me. Catholics in America need to stop thinking that the Church should conform herself to our political ideas.

There is this problem – When the Pope writes, he writes in spanish. Then it has to be translated into English.
The word redistribute simply means taking from one and giving to the other. However, in US politics, the word means “taking a lot from those who are actually working for it, and giving it to some others who may or may not really need it or deserve it, based on some goofy government program” It means heavy, heavy taxation of the real workers in the country to benefit those who don’t work hard.
You are assuming that the word “redistribution” when used in the Papal document, means the same as the US political definition of the word.
No, it simply means that we need to have adequate (“legitimate”)welfare programs.

This reminds me of a Political Science class on the subject of inequality. I stated that a key responsibility was to ensure the human dignity of those disadvantaged at a given time (even when I wasn’t as Catholic as I am now, this seems like normal reasoning to me). To my great surprise, none of my classmates understood what “human dignity” meant. They could not even make sense of my statement and, even the teacher, was thrown aback. The more I elaborated on it, the more unpalatable they found the idea… To me this anecdote reflects have egotistic a society can become, without even being aware of it.

It should be noted (if it has not already) the Pope use the qualifying adjective “legitimate” when referring to redistribution of economic benefits by the State; this use implies the existence of an illegitimate redistribution of such benefits.

Despite a huge majority of Catholics and Protestant/evangelicals Christian Charity is NOT equivalent to socialistic redistribution or any other humanistic definition. Christ did not tell anyone to quit their livelihood in fact he helped his parents in his youth. This notion is a complete reversal of Charity from the goodness and abundance from God. Socialism kills the spirit, obliterates the concept of self which in turn annihilates God in the individual. These Church leaders are either mistaken or seek to mislead. Never once in the Scriptures does God/Jesus suggest anything but self support, hard work and charity. In point of fact Jesus has a parable of those who take the treasure given from God, life and possibility and do nothing with it. The Scripture clearly says multiply the goodness and gifts from God and says absolutely nothing to support central redistribution. This Pope is a Fraud.

Interestingly the whole very brief address mentions the culture of death and sanctity of human twice all tied to the other teachings. ( Not reported) Also interestingly he cites several encyclicals including Centessimus Annus which was to some degree sympathetic to a market economy. This is not how this brief address was reported. As you observe this Pope its important to realize it is a caricature to think of him as bringing radical change. He will not, he regards himself as a son of the Church. As a political conservative I would tell my fellow conservatives that we should not interpret this Pope solely through the lens of the political issues as they appear in the United States. Capitalism is not the same thing here and in Latin America, and it both places there is a degree of crony capitalism that has the state working with the powerful to distribute economic benefits to the powerful at the expense of the less powerful. To fail to recognize this is no service to conservative principles and more importantly no service to the truth. While the specific policies adopted to help the poor are to some degree a technical issue involving economic expertise and not theology, the moral need to help the poor is of course a legitimate concern of the Church. To paraphrase Sen Rick Santorum, there is a strain of conservatism that thinks everything is ok if the marginal tax rate is 28 % and not 35%. This is not the case and its not the conservatism of people like Russel Kirk, or Edmund Burke, or the original founders of National Review.
A little more on the Pope’s address can be seen http://catholicxray.com/what-did-pope-francis-say-about-wealth-redistribution-do-we-need-to-tax-the-rich

Pope Francis has reconciled with liberation theologians like Gustavo Gutierrez and Arturo Paoli. Francis rejects the Marxist angle of liberation theology, but basically accepts it as an option for the poor. Roberto Bosca said that Bergoglio accepts the premise of liberation theology as an option for the poor, i.e. redistribution of wealth. Are we splitting hairs when we say Pope Francis is, at a minimum, a Marxist sympathizer? It sounds like an oxymoron, but are we talking about Christological Marxism?

We would be if such a phrase had any meaning. But as Ratzinger pointed out, the two are incompatible. So the phrase doesn’t mean anything. Therefore we’re not talking about Marxism.

Actually a better way to look at this bus that Marx was being a Christian when he wrote that redistribution of wealth is okay. He wandered off the reservation when he posited that that redistribution must happen through an all-powerful state, that private property was anathema, and that the heart of inequality was class warfare.

Preaching income distribution is as old as Christianity. Preaching some legitimate role of the state in that is as old as Constantine.

Why does he have to, Bryant? Why, when he say “the state” do you assume the Federal government? Why can’t it mean state or city government involvement? That would count as “lower order of authority” would it not? Or do you think subsidiarity and government are mutually exclusive terms?

He may have thought the American media may have done so. Then again maybe it never occurred to him that it matters what American conservatives want to read into his true statements about the Church’s teaching.

It needs to be remembered that recently it was made public that Francis wrote to Benedict asking him to give his thoughts on the Atheist Interview. He gave him one sheet of paper. Benedict replied not with just the one sheet but three sheets of paper what he thought of that Interview. It has since been taken off the Vatican’s Web site. My point is his words can and did cause confusion as even Ralph Martin himself pointed put.

The problem with his statements, as I see it, is that he doesn’t stress the differences enough to separate himself from the corrupt politicians who use class warfare on a regular basis…so he may not be a Marxist or a Fascist, but they will use his words to further their cause. And you can blame the media if you want, but they aren’t misquoting him THAT much.

I agree that hotheadedness is not helpful. St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa lists a lot of virtues to strive for (to become well-ordered to God’s Will, living the beatitudes so as to follow Christ’s greatest commandment) as well as a lot of vices to flee from before we can best order our earthly pilgrimage to God’s Holy Will (with lots of grace from the Holy Spirit). Since we are sinners and are therefore dis-ordered in some aspect or another, it is hard to see a complete “garden of Eden” on earth. Anyways, to envision one is different than to actually realize (impossible without God’s grace). I agree it is difficult for us in the U.S. to get passed the media bias (political and just about every type of reporting has become more like professional wrestling, only without the pay-per-views). We’ve heard the problem with capitalism is there’s too few capitalists (capital tends to get concentrated and those without capital can risk being excluded – and the existence of many poor is proof). Also, we’ve heard government officials can be corrupt in administering tax-derived financial (and other) resources – these individuals can concentrate as easily as can private capitalists. I believe our Lord Jesus Christ desires good shepherds for us. I believe the pope is expressing desire for a subsidiarity of good shepherds extending all the way to the least of us, within the world and within the Church Christ built (I want to trust God’s shepherds like a child so as to remain blameless, but also have discernment and counsel accompany this trust). I think, if I understand the pope and the Church’s social teaching correctly, we want to work hard (legitimately gotten money/wealth is a means of “storing” our labors into a common currency for transactions with others) to serve the least of our brothers and sisters in our little communities. We’re free (in an earthly sense) to hoard and use these fruits of our labors for ourselves and our own projects, but I think the pope, speaking to his flock about moral and spiritual things more than earthly/economics alone, is saying – you will only be truly free if you do God’s will regarding material wealth – caring for widows and orphans and the least of these materially and spiritually. You will only be free if you “liberate” yourself from your excess wealth (and all the sadness and strife it brings you). Liberality comes from words that mean “open-handedness” in that you are liberating yourself from the burden wrought by excess. In the U.S., our caring for impoverished people takes place using public tax-derived administrations (welfare, etc.) but also within the private charity context. Since we know the susceptibility of government programs to become corrupt (through greed but also the challenges of administering bureaucratic “red tape” welfare programs) and we know the susceptibility of private “wealth-holders” to fail in liberality and munificence (their choice), also we know that private charities can even become corrupt with embezzlement and other such things. What are we to do? It’s not an easy answer but I trust that the pope and the Catholic Church is consistently teaching to individual minds (wealthy and not) to strive to give up the greed and the covetousness that underlies each individual’s decision to choose to distribute, re-distribute, hoard, and receive wealth and to order it to God’s Holy Will, for the salvation of souls.

This website is not affiliated with any of the organizations or institutions at which Deacon Omar F. A. Gutierrez is employed and/or with which he is involved. Links to any sites are not endorsements of the contents of those sites.